GUILTY UK - Hashim Ijazuddin, 21, and Saqib Hussain, 20, car crash A46 Leicester 11 Feb 2022 *Murder Arrests*

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

And... we're back. A town can have two different names.

Mahek was asked if she tried to get Saqib to go to Loughborough because she knew her co-defendant Raees Jamal lived in the town. She replied that was not what happened and she didn't even know Raees was living in Loughborough at that time.

Mr Thompson asked: "Where did Loughborough come from?" Mahek replied: "I just thought Loughborough was in Leicester. I thought it was the same place."
 
Mahek Bukhari back on stand at TikTok murder trial day 23

The crash​


Mr Thompson asked Mahek about the actual crash. Mahek described seeing the car leaving the road but not seeing an actual collision. She said: "I've seen the Skoda go into the central reservation but I've never seen anything else."

Mr Thompson asked: "Did you regard yourself in any way responsible for what happened to the Skoda?" She said no. He asked: "So in your mind what had happened was a tragic accident?"

She replied: "I would say that, yes."

I wonder what the victims family's feel listening to this. She just states a blunt No when asked if she regards herself in any way responsible. Im not sure if she is festering a hatred for Saqib or she is just cold hearted.

JMO
 
So in the morning Mahek said:
She was also asked if it was true that she had apologised to co-defendant Raees Jamal for getting him involved in the situation. She said that was not true - she did not apologise.
Click to expand...

In the afternoon Raees said:
"Mahek was crying at the time so I was just comforting her. She apologised for everything that had happened.

"From there I was just making sure she was alright."

When asked the apology was for he said: "For getting me involved in that situation."
Click to expand...

Sounds like there's no love between those two as they contradict each other in court on the same day. Gut feeling with Raees so far today is he's starting to tell the truth, which is good to see.
 
Raees was asked to comment on his relationships with the other seven defendants.

Natasha Akhtar: He had known her for a couple of months at the time of the crash. He said: "We got quite close 'cause she used to come and see me every single day". He said it wasn't romantic but that she seemed "more interested" in him that he was in her.

Ouch! Call me crazy but I'm actually starting to feel quite sorry for Natasha now!

Out of all of the defendants she was the first one to get arrested and locked up, no-one's accused her of wearing a balaclava, carrying a weapon, driving anyone off the road, threatening anyone, lying to anyone [yet], cheating on anyone. Instead she seems to have ended up ruining her life by going after the wrong guy who won't even return her feelings!

She was probably terrified when she made that phone call to her mum from prison that ended up being played in court.

JMO of course!
 
bobbymkii said:
Out of all of the defendants she was the first one to get arrested and locked up, no-one's accused her of wearing a balaclava, carrying a weapon, driving anyone off the road, threatening anyone, lying to anyone [yet], cheating on anyone. Instead she seems to have ended up ruining her life by going after the wrong guy who won't even return her feelings!
Click to expand...

I have her down in my “lesser offences” list; in the last trial she appeared to follow the other defendants stories, coming out with what sounded like blatant lies, if she had, or rather does come clean this time around in court, I think it will help her case, otherwise she’ll just came across as “one of them, who can’t be trusted” again.

… and this time, she’s had time to think about it more and realise her relationship wasn’t what she thought at the time.
 
Blynk Mist said:
I have her down in my “lesser offences” list; in the last trial she appeared to follow the other defendants stories, coming out with what sounded like blatant lies, if she had, or rather does come clean this time around in court, I think it will help her case, otherwise she’ll just came across as “one of them, who can’t be trusted” again.

… and this time, she’s had time to think about it more and realise her relationship wasn’t what she thought at the time.
Click to expand...
Yes I was quite alarmed with how her examination in the original trial began before it collapsed while she was still on the stand! I remember thinking, "oh Natasha, is this really a good idea? I don't think he's worth it hun!" She's also had time out of a prison cell and back with her family, and has a different KC for this trial so she could well have rethought what she'll say this time around. But RJ appears to still essentially be taking the fall for her, SG and AJ's involvement so she might still feel she 'owes' him something.
That said I think there is some truth in what these defendants are saying, namely NA, SG & AJ in that they just went out to socialise in the shisha bar and when they agreed to help Mahek they didn't quite know exactly what they were letting themselves in for.
They'll have known more than they're letting on, of course, but I somehow doubt they were willing to just go out and murder two strangers in order to help out someone they've never met, albeit someone 'famous.'
I know I had never heard of Maybvlogs before this trial, but her target demographic appears to be young people in the British Muslim community, of which all of these other defendants are. Possibly they thought if they helped her out they'd get a shoutout on TikTok or even get invited for some free food and drink next time Mahek is invited to the opening of a new restaurant?
All very much JMO trying to fill in some gaps where the evidence is as hazy as the air in the Tubo Shisha bar must be.
 
Blynk Mist said:
Sounds like there's no love between those two as they contradict each other in court on the same day. Gut feeling with Raees so far today is he's starting to tell the truth, which is good to see.
Click to expand...
They've ruined each other's lives with their own terrible decisions. Mahek by involving Raees in the first place by seeking his assistance under false pretences. And Raees by [allegedly] ramming the Skoda off the road.
Even if somehow Raees is telling the truth (and the crash scene investigator who was on the stand in the Crown's case is wrong) and the contact between the Skoda and the Seat happened before the crash and wasn't the cause Hashim and Saqib would still be alive today if it wasn't for Raees's driving.
Still, he does appear to be more honest than Mahek or Ansreen (not that that's saying much!). He admits he feels "some degree" of responsibility, admitted covering his tracks by getting rid of his phone and ultimately, when he learned that the police were after him he turned himself in voluntarily. I think he knows he's going to be found guilty of manslaughter at the very least and is showing at least some signs of remorse. As opposed to Mahek who called Saqib a "crazy stalker" in front of his grieving family members and seemed to prefer letting her own little brother get arrested for murder rather than to just come clean!
 
I've never understood why Mahek let the police arrest her own brother rather than putting them straight - even if just to say he wasn't driving. Her own family! I hope the jury will see the extent of her lies and the lengths she will go to to save herself. Goodness knows what her brother and father must think of her.
 
First trial:

No contact with Natasha Akhtar since arrest​

Jamal said he had two phone calls with Akhtar after she set off back home towards Birmingham and had not spoken to her since. Describing the two calls, he said: "I was checking to see if she had got home and she was still en route, then the second one she was telling me the police were following her."
He said the phone call ended abruptly and he has not spoken to her since.

Second trial:

Natasha 'furious' after crash​

After the group parted ways a couple of hours after the fatal crash, Natasha phoned Raees. Mr Cooper said: "She demanded to you that you were to tell the truth that she was not the driver at the time of this incident?" Raees replied: "That's correct."
Mr Cooper continued: "All in all, Mr Jamal, Natasha Akhtar was furious with you, wasn't she? She was calling you some pretty graphic names, wasn't she?" He agreed.
Mr Cooper said Natasha had called Raees a "liar" a "coward" and a "*advertiser censored*" but Raees said he did not remember that.

A bit of a difference in tone in the questioning there!
 
From this morning's evidence:

Rekan said the plan to switch phones came from Raees's solicitors.

If this is true, then it sounds like the solicitors encouraged the defendants to tamper with evidence and they could be disciplined for this. I already had some doubt as to whether the "legal advice" came from legitimate legal professionals or dodgy mates, but this is very questionable.

From the SRA Solicitors' Code of Conduct:

2: Dispute resolution and proceedings before courts, tribunals and inquiries​

i
  1. You do not misuse or tamper with evidence or attempt to do so.
  2. You do not seek to influence the substance of evidence, including generating false evidence or persuading witnesses to change their evidence.
 
Legal said:
From this morning's evidence:

Rekan said the plan to switch phones came from Raees's solicitors.

If this is true, then it sounds like the solicitors encouraged the defendants to tamper with evidence and they could be disciplined for this. I already had some doubt as to whether the "legal advice" came from legitimate legal professionals or dodgy mates, but this is very questionable.

From the SRA Solicitors' Code of Conduct:

2: Dispute resolution and proceedings before courts, tribunals and inquiries​

i
  1. You do not misuse or tamper with evidence or attempt to do so.
  2. You do not seek to influence the substance of evidence, including generating false evidence or persuading witnesses to change their evidence.
Click to expand...
Be interesting to know if Rekan got told directly by Raees solicitors to change the phones. Otherwise it could be a grey area with Raees lying to Rekan about that advice. I hope we get more clarity on this.

I think now that at least Mahek and Rekan have basically called Mo Patel a lair in some of his incriminating evidence that goes against their narrative. Its going to be interesting when Mo takes the stand.

JMO
 
LouTennant said:
Be interesting to know if Rekan got told directly by Raees solicitors to change the phones. Otherwise it could be a grey area with Raees lying to Rekan about that advice. I hope we get more clarity on this.

I think now that at least Mahek and Rekan have basically called Mo Patel a lair in some of his incriminating evidence that goes against their narrative. Its going to be interesting when Mo takes the stand.

JMO
Click to expand...
When MP takes the stand he's in for a rough time. His cross examination from his co-defendant's barristers might even be more hostile than the prosecutor's.
Same with Natasha, based on the cross exam questions her barrister has asked the other defendants so far (particularly RJ) she's submitted a substantially different defence statement this time around, and one that is a lot less kind to RJ!
 
bobbymkii said:
When MP takes the stand he's in for a rough time. His cross examination from his co-defendant's barristers might even be more hostile than the prosecutor's.
Same with Natasha, based on the cross exam questions her barrister has asked the other defendants so far (particularly RJ) she's submitted a substantially different defence statement this time around, and one that is a lot less kind to RJ!
Click to expand...
My read so far is that the others are denying MP statements because they know he is going to chuck them under the bus.
My thinking is that MP must now be really aggrieved by being in this situation on what was supposed to be him just giving a little bit of back up on that fatefull night. If I was him I would lay it all bare and try and get sympathy from the jurors.

I think he is cornered and the best thing he should do is say there was talk of violence that night but he never imagined anyone would die. Of course they will all paint him out to be a liar but he has been the most honest so far with his early police statements. As a juror I would lean on believing him on what I've heard so far.

JMO
 
After Collingwood Thompson KC said this morning Gulammustafa had the "best view in the world" it got me thinking what the Judge and KCs actually look like, so I've just Googled them all...

Judge - Timothy Spencer KC - Ancient Nomads, Modern Travellers
Crown - Collingwood Thompson KC - Collingwood Thompson KC - Barrister - 7BR Barristers Chambers
What shocked me after reading all the BIOs is "Wow, this trial must be costing an absolute fortune!!" - Most of these barristers appear to be at the top of the Bar, specialising in Murder / Manslaughter and must be charging 'someone' a fortune for their services (they look like the cream of the crop, I'm no expert in any of this btw, just going by their BIOs :))

The two that stood out the most were Christopher Millington (who's BIO makes him sound like the KC to have if your a criminal, saying that, it doesn't say in any of the BIOs how many they won/lost for their clients!?) and Adam Kane (who doesn't appear to specialise in Murder / Manslaughter and seems to be more specialised in financial crimes.

Is it published anywhere if these are all legal aid or are they being paid for by the defendants?
 
Last edited:
Blynk Mist said:
After Collingwood Thompson KC said this morning Gulammustafa had the "best view in the world" it got me thinking what the Judge and KCs actually look like, so I've just Googled them all...

Judge - Timothy Spencer KC - Ancient Nomads, Modern Travellers
Crown - Collingwood Thompson KC - Collingwood Thompson KC - Barrister - 7BR Barristers Chambers
What shocked me after reading all the BIOs is "Wow, this trial must be costing an absolute fortune!!" - Most of these barristers appear to be at the top of the Bar, specialising in Murder / Manslaughter and must be charging 'someone' a fortune for their services (they look like the cream of the crop, I'm no expert in any of this btw, just going by their BIOs :))

The two that stood out the most were Christopher Millington (who's BIO makes him sound like the KC to have if your a criminal, saying that, it doesn't say in any of the BIOs how many they won/lost for their clients!?) and Adam Kane (who doesn't appear to specialise in Murder / Manslaughter and seems to be more specialised in financial crimes.

Is it published anywhere if these are all legal aid or are they being paid for by the defendants?
Click to expand...

I think Ansreen and Mahek would be the only ones who could be able to afford their own KC's. Although Mahek can't be that wealthy if she still lives with her parents. Even if she can afford an Audi A1 or an Audi TT courtesy car when the A1 is damaged. Ansreen does own a business so could be well off enough to be required to fund her own defence?
As for barristers, Natasha Akhtar's current barrister is the same one who defended Tommy Cashman (unless there are more than one John Coopers on the King's Counsel). Her previous barrister was this guy: Bar tribunal chair 'completely misunderstood' his role, court told :oops:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 68 more.
Total: 3,101 (members: 69, guests: 3,032)

Online statistics

Members online
69
Guests online
3,032
Total visitors
3,101
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
602,662
Messages
18,144,623
Members
231,476
Latest member
ceciliaesquivel2000@yahoo
Back
Top